Paper detail

Inter-Session Network Coding with Strategic Users: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Network Coding

A common assumption in the existing network coding literature is that the users are cooperative and non-selfish. However, this assumption can be violated in practice. In this paper, we analyze inter-session network coding in a wired network using game theory. We assume selfish users acting strategically to maximize their own utility, leading to a resource allocation game among users. In particular, we study the well-known butterfly network topology where a bottleneck link is shared by several network coding and routing flows. We prove the existence of a Nash equilibrium for a wide range of utility functions. We show that the number of Nash equilibria can be large (even infinite) for certain choices of system parameters. This is in sharp contrast to a similar game setting with traditional packet forwarding where the Nash equilibrium is always unique. We then characterize the worst-case efficiency bounds, i.e., the Price-of-Anarchy (PoA), compared to an optimal and cooperative network design. We show that by using a novel discriminatory pricing scheme which charges encoded and forwarded packets differently, we can improve the PoA. However, regardless of the discriminatory pricing scheme being used, the PoA is still worse than for the case when network coding is not applied. This implies that, although inter-session network coding can improve performance compared to ordinary routing, it is significantly more sensitive to users' strategic behaviour. For example, in a butterfly network where the side links have zero cost, the efficiency can be as low as 25%. If the side links have non-zero cost, then the efficiency can further reduce to only 20%. These results generalize the well-known result of guaranteed 67% worst-case efficiency for traditional packet forwarding networks.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.